Slashdot Mirror

Take this reviewer's commentary with a grain of salt. As with all "audiophiles", he bases his opinion on just plain subjective emotion associated with product brands, individual tastes, and nationalistic biases, not any type of fact. He doesn't like the $5,500 Sony headphones? Then why did he like the Sennheiser $55,000 headphones (yes, that's right, $55K headphones) or the Focal $3,999 headphones? And I really hate to bring this up because it's ugly, but maybe his review comes down to simple nationalism? The reviewer (Vlad Savov) is based in Europe, and Sennheiser is from Germany and Focal is from France. And Sony is (duh) from Japan.

Take this reviewer's commentary with a grain of salt. As with all "audiophiles", he bases his opinion on just plain subjective emotion associated with product brands, individual tastes, and nationalistic biases, not any type of fact. He doesn't like the $5,500 Sony headphones? Then why did he like the Sennheiser $55,000 headphones (yes, that's right, $55K headphones) or the Focal $3,999 headphones? And I really hate to bring this up because it's ugly, but maybe his review comes down to simple nationalism? The reviewer (Vlad Savov) is based in Europe, and Sennheiser is from Germany and Focal is from France. And Sony is (duh) from Japan.

So buy a Nexus.

That works as long as Google continues to sell Nexus devices. There already isn't a Nexus tablet since late May, and Nexus phones appear to be on their way out as well since a couple days ago. Or did you mean a used Nexus?

I'm on a Windows Phone, actually.

Behold an endangered species if I ever saw one. What is its current global market share, less than 1%?

0.7% in early 2016, according to this

Yeah, it's just a name change: http://www.theverge.com/2016/6...

Correction, acquired mSpot in 2012
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5...

Out of the iPhone buying demographic, Slashdot represents a very tiny percentage, one that actually cares about the problems this may cause (including the DRM). The vast majority of people will continue to queue up outside Apple stores to grab the new shiny, and obediently buy overpriced dongles or replace their existing headphones with the newer ones.
Sure, go ahead and boycott it, the enormous clout and marketshare of Apple will ensure that other manufacturers follow suit. Apple isn't even the first to propose this, Motorola and Leeco already have beaten them to it.
So look forward to a world where Android manufacturers also jump onto the bandwagon - of continuously restricting user choice, regardless of whether you boycott Apple over this or not.

The same thing is already happening on Android, from shipping phones without an SD card (started by Nexus and going on to the OnePlus 1/2/3), to getting rid of USB mass storage connectivity (HTC did this on some of their phones) and preventing apps from accessing the SD card.

Considering that Nintendo is releasing their own mini NES for $59.99 http://www.theverge.com/2016/7..., the Analogue Nt mini looks way over priced. Yes, I know they are not the same, but there is no justification for the huge price difference.

rape accusations have become THE form of character assassination. It's the new "witch"

... and since no witch ever existed no woman has ever been raped by a man (though we must always acknowledge the possibility of a woman raping a man, of course). Great analogy dude!

But hey, you just go ahead and turn this obvious serial abuser Applebaum into your cause célèbre, go on ... 'bout as clever as your analogies.

You're a confirmed rape apologist at the very least ...

... is ask the Canadian Mounted Police.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...
But hey, 5000 bucks bonus.

RTFA.. That was not the issue here. The issue was over ruling state law, which the FCC could do if it were explicitly stated in federal law:

"..the commission is not explicitly granted permission to overrule the states like this. And while government agencies are generally given deference to interpret their own powers where a law has left them unclear, the court determined that isn't the case in this situation. That's because it would be going so far as to overrule a state law, and that, the court said, requires an agency's power to be clearly stated in federal law." http://www.theverge.com/2016/8...

And again: AT&T sues Louisville over law that would make it easier for Google Fiber to move in http://www.theverge.com/2016/2...

So fuck off moron.

I Love morons: AT&T sues Louisville over law that would make it easier for Google Fiber to move in http://www.theverge.com/2016/2...

Do some research before posting.

You don't have to have your data centers located next to each other and good DR planning dictates that you _dont_. I've worked with/for several banks and their customers are even less tolerant of transactional mistakes than airline customers are. They all ran multiple data centers in different regions so a single natural disaster couldn't take them out. For example, a major US bank had three primary data centers, Southwest, East Coast and Midwest (banks are generally sensitive about where there data centers are, you can generally find out with a little bit of sluthing but they don't advertise it). Two were always online and sharing load. The third was down for repairs but had to be able to come back online in a set amount of time (hours) or it was the data center managers ass. They had a rotating schedule of what data center would be down when so upgrades could be planned weeks or months in advance.

An absolutely essential piece is having accurate time keeping and making sure all computers are synced to it. External ntp sources are not accurate enough, most data centers used in this manner have local ntp servers that sync with GPS signals (e.g. Epsilon GPS Clocks). Google actually uses atomic clocks to ensure consistency in Spanner, which is their globally distributed database.

For the same cost of an Xbox One, I can get a PC that performs just as well as an Xbox One.

Games that aren't ported to X11/Linux and don't work in Wine require a Windows license, which costs $119. After Microsoft's price cut, this leaves you with $130 for the hardware. I'd be interested to read your $130 build.

Amen.

I read a similar story last night, and all I could think was "would you like me to call a whambulance?"

Remember George Hotz?

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6...

He developed some self-driving technology and Elon offered him a job with a bonus if they developed technology independent of MobileEye. Elon has wanted to part ways with them for a while.

The accident gives him the excuse he needs.

Elon likes to do as much as possible in-house. You see that in both Tesla and SpaceX.

You people do realize that Elon Musk had actual rocket scientists working on the original Hyperloop paper, right? Whether or not Mr. Musk's own physics degree is worth anything or not, the degrees of his employees definitely are, or SpaceX rockets wouldn't fly. They did modeling of vacuum evacuation of the tube. They did modeling of stresses on a basic pylon, using the same software they use to model the stresses on SpaceX rockets. They did modeling of the capsule. The math and engineering have been vetted pretty seriously.

I think you slightly miss the overall point of the video. The math is one thing, and surely no-one's claiming it's impossible to build a system that works with enough effort, however the real question is whether or not such a system will be worth the advantage, which, as the video explains, will not be much more than an hour cut from the travel time when you take into consideration that the system will likely have to have close to airport-level security anyway.

The cost calculations they've been showing thus far are vastly understated, they assume no maintenance costs whatsoever, and the costs for the building of the thing are sketchy at best.

Overall the whole project of HyperLoop One as it's been thus far presented is heavy on hype and light on facts and doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence because of that. For example as mentioned in the video, they currently waive the challenges caused by thermal expansion of by saying they can have a moving tube at the endpoint, that is, that they'll just allow the whole thing to expand few hundred meters and just move the station with it, but it should be obvious that you can't have 600 miles of solid steel tubing without any expansion joints and assume that this thing won't buckle at all and cause issues... I'm no engineer but this still seems very sloppy if they want their project to be taken seriously.

Simulating these things is one thing since in simulations you can simply assume a working system (ie. a working 600 miles long vacuum-tube), the video is talking about the difficulties of actually building/maintaining such a system using current technology while keeping the costs sensible.

This is not to say some version of the hyperloop is physically impossible, just that given all the challenges present in actually building and maintaining one, it looks to me at the moment like it's not really worth it.

As this article well put is:

The biggest issues are speed and scale. The Hyperloop was pitched as faster and cheaper than alternatives like cars and trains, but even small shifts in those numbers can dramatically change how it stacks up. It's easy to imagine safety concerns limiting Hyperloop speeds to just a fraction of its theoretical top speed or right-of-way issues keeping stations far from urban centers. Would we still be excited about the Hyperloop if a 30-minute trek became a three-hour one? What if it cost $60 billion instead the promised $6 billion? After enough setbacks, it might not be worth developing the technology at all. Those deployment details are life-or-death issues for the Hyperloop, but as long as the tests are focused on small-scale loops, it's not clear we'll ever get answers to them.

SpaceX's latest round of tests doesn't seem likely to change that. The test track is only 5 miles, nowhere near the distance it would take to reach 700 miles per hour. Another test track built by Hyperloop Test Technologies will have the same problem, aiming at a 200mph top speed. For the same reason, these test tracks can’t address the unique safety issues that come with near-supersonic travel. The result is just a tube-powered version of conventional transportation tech like maglev and rail. That doesn't mean that useful work can't be done on this round of test tracks, but it means the central question of the Hyperloop — whether it

[Recent rules from the Federal Aviation Administration mean delivery by drone is years away in the United States

Didn't I just read that 7-Eleven is already doing drone deliveries? Yes, I did.

You put way too much faith in the telcos.

It has nothing to do with GPS or GLONASS. It's because Pokemon Go (like Ingress) uses Google Maps data, and Google Maps data is less specific in South Korea due to national security restrictions. (2, 3, and this Reddit thread about why Ingress doesn't work in South Korea)

Since Pokemon Go features are tied to map data on roads, landmarks, and buildings, and South Korean maps don't have that data, Pokemon Go doesn't work... except in Sochko, which as a quirk of the grid system is exempt from the data granularity restriction.

The barge is placed down range so that the booster does not have to reverse course to return near the launch site. It just continues on a ballistic path, only firing up the engines to allow a soft landing.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...

One of the interesting things in this trip are a couple of Space adapters that will let Boeing's CST-100 Starliner, SpaceX's Crew Dragon
spacecraft, and anyone else that comes along to dock to the station.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7...

No word yet on if Apple will follow this standard or come up with their own.

Computing is going cloud, and they're barely interested in ramping up their iCloud capabilities.

You've obviously never seen a recent WWDC Keynote, or owned an Apple product made in the past few years.

Not that it would matter, unless Apple found a way to access all that data being collected by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. . Then they would have to spend lots of money to hire actual geniuses to process and research that data in a way that would allow them to leapfrog current applications of computing.

You think there is only one reason for Cloud Computing. And you're wrong. Apple doesn't need to/want to Datamine their Customer Base to make money. They have awesome products (that happen to include some pretty innovative, secure and frankly quite-handy "Cloud" integration).

hey're not going to maintain their computing environment when no one wants to buy their products to type in queries

Again, you obviously haven't been keeping-up. You need to get your Apple news from places other than Slashdot.

when it becomes "unprofitable" to compete with smartphones linked with cloud computing features.

Man, you are so out-of-touch with the direction that Apple is going, it's actually a waste of time typing this "rebuttal".

Microsoft has more of a future in the computing industry than Apple.

That is not what their falling marketshare numbers in both Desktop and Mobile would lead a rational person to believe.

Yeah, especially when their content producers are dishonest about how they "earn" that money.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7...

For comparison, the WiiU currently is sitting at about $12.8 million. So Pokemon Go is almost as profitable in a few days without hardware obligations as their latest hardware platform in a few years.

Niantic isn't owned by Google (Alphabet) any longer.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8...

Your #'s are a bit dated, at last check we* are the elite .7% of the market: http://www.theverge.com/2016/5...

*Yes, I still carry a Windows Phone, still debating what to switch to.

Actually, this move makes sense considering Facebook is currently trying to get people to use Messenger to interact with other parts of their life including _banking_:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7...

1. Facebook paid no UK corporation tax in 2012. 2. Google's UK tax deal is a joke at our expense. 3. Microsoft pays no UK tax on £1.7bn of online revenues. 4. Apple pays just £12m UK tax on £2bn profit.

Samsung, like many companies, releases earnings guidance early for investors to chew on. They consistently release the guidance the first week of each quarter and then the full earnings report by the end of the first month of each quarter. They have done this every year for as long as I can remember (going back 3-4 years now). The full earnings report's numbers are usually well within 1 percent of everything that was reported in the guidance. See, for example, the April 2016 guidance and the April 2016 report.

Samsung, like many companies, releases earnings guidance early for investors to chew on. They consistently release the guidance the first week of each quarter and then the full earnings report by the end of the first month of each quarter. They have done this every year for as long as I can remember (going back 3-4 years now). The full earnings report's numbers are usually well within 1 percent of everything that was reported in the guidance. See, for example, the April 2016 guidance and the April 2016 report.

In mid-September, about a dozen Xbox one games will support Xbox Play Anywhere. This feature adds a copy of select games to your Windows Store purchases when you buy them on Xbox One or vice versa. So you're right only in the sense that Windows 10 Anniversary Update is a dependency for Xbox Play Anywhere. It's not clear to what extent other existing and future Xbox One games will come to support Xbox Play Anywhere.

I am a bit surprised about the belief that AIs (or machine learning) will solve all problems given enough data.
What do you think a neural net would have learned to do if trained to use VW's "AdBlue" as efficiently as possible but still to pass the NHTSA conformance test?
Who would you blame then? After all the constraints look reasonable. Would you want to be the engineer sued because he did not predict the neural net might learn something illegal?

Plus, there is obviously a problem with the way Tesla gathers its training data. If Elon Musk promotes a dashcam video taken by the killed driver earlier where the driver admits insufficient attention to the road (the cutting-in vehicle was in front of the driver and clearly visible), people might well take this as encouragement to not pay attention.

“Spotify wants to use the app to acquire new customers and sell subscriptions.”

To me, this would indicate there is a link in the app that goes to a web page to sign up for a new subscription, which is against app store rules.

This wouldn't be the first time a corporation misrepresented a situation to paint themselves in a good light, and it won't be the last. Hell, it's not like this letter is under oath or anything.

For example, another Apple competitor, NetFlix, had an iOS app that worked for years without using Apple's in-app purchasing model, just using their own web site to sign up and pay for subscriptions, before adding in-app subscriptions to their iOS app.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/24/9395037/netflix-ios-app-subscribe-in-app-purchases

The US Navy has been working on an autonomous ship for a while now. here it is

Data will be open sourced as well. We already have a HUGE database with Open Street Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/ if things continue in this way, there will be a LOT of useful data for AI, like other things it will start. of course an AI could also collect data from the Internet too. think Microsoft tried something like with concerning results: http://www.theverge.com/2016/3... Anyway, I think the data one way or another will be there.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fe7e...

http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

http://top500.org/news/china-t...

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6...

http://www.netlib.org/utk/peop...

Or my (rejected) submission at https://slashdot.org/submissio...

"What's the move here, because I'm not seeing it." I agree. Also, it seems that Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella doesn't see it, either:

Quotes from Satya Nadella:

"I have been learning about LinkedIn for some time..." That's not the sort of thing to say about a $26.2 billion purchase. He learned for "some time"? No one else was involved? There was no detailed examination by many managers?

Corporate jargon: [I have been] "also reflecting on how networks can truly differentiate cloud services."

Corporate jargon: "I consider if an asset will expand our opportunity -- specifically, does it expand our total addressable market?" What is the difference between a market and an "addressable market"?

"Is this asset riding secular usage and technology trends?" What?? I wondered if I understood the meaning of the word "secular". I did. It means "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis". I can certainly agree that Microsoft is not religious or spiritual. Satya Nadella wants Microsoft to "ride trends".

CREEPY: "...vibrant network that brings together a professional's information in LinkedIn's public network with the information in Office 365..." Wow! Microsoft will be watching what you type?

VERY CREEPY: "This combination will make it possible for new experiences such as a LinkedIn newsfeed that serves up articles based on the project you are working on and Office suggesting an expert to connect with via LinkedIn to help with a task you're trying to complete."

SCARY: "...new opportunities will be created for monetization through individual and organization subscriptions and targeted advertising." To me, that means that I should create an even greater distance between myself and Microsoft. I don't want to be "monetized".

RENT ONLY? "...we have moved Office from a set of productivity tools to a cloud service across any platform and device." Translation: We don't want you to be able to buy our software. We make more money if you rent it.

"... we can reinvent ways to make professionals more productive" They are already invented, but you will re-invent them?

"reinventing selling, marketing and talent management business processes" Satya Nadella, why do you make wild statements with no specific meaning? (Also, no Oxford comma.)

"I can't wait to see what our teams dream up..." Translation: At present, he has NO idea what Microsoft will do. He will wait to see. Dreaming.

"A big part of this deal is accelerating LinkedIn's growth." Perhaps LinkedIn is at the END of its growth.

Corporate jargon: "...keep the LinkedIn team focused on driving results..."

" ...while simultaneously partnering on product integration plans with the Office 365 and Dynamics teams." So, the LinkedIn team will "focus" on two things at the same time? How will job-getting be "integrated" with typing a document? Will Clippy jump up and say, "That's boring! Wouldn't you like a better job?"

"... we'll pick key projects where we can go deep together that will ultimately result in new experiences for customers." Apparent translation: We have NO idea at present what we will do.

Corporate jargon: "... sharing our vision to empower professionals".

My opinion: Satya Nadella, what you said above indicates you are not able to manage a company. Apparently you were chosen to be CEO because you were the least annoying candidate. The fact that you were chosen indicates that the Microsoft Board of Directors is not competent.

The headline is "There's No Evidence" but there was evidence presented in the video. Decisive evidence? Persuasive evidence? You decide.

For me, the most persuasive part was where they used Google Trends to see how popular the autocompleted searches actually were. The autocomplete suggested "hillary clinton crime reform" yet Google Trends said that search didn't happen often enough to graph. It was super rare and yet it was the most popular completion to "hillary clinton cri"?

Okay, let's ask Google Trends what is popular. I am providing you with clickable links so you can see the graphs for yourself. "hillary clinton indicted" vs. "hillary clinton indiana"
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana&cmpt=q

Hmm, "indiana" was roughly as searched for in May as "indicted" but searches for "indiana" have dropped to near zero while "indicted" shot way up. So Google Trends says "indicted" is much more searched for than "indiana".

Here, let's add in "hillary clinton india" as another item on the graph.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20indicted%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20indiana%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20india&cmpt=q

Nope, "hillary clinton india" clearly isn't a popular search.

Okay, for "hillary clinton cri" what is the more searched-for completion, "hillary clinton criminal" or "hillary clinton crime reform"?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20criminal%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20crime%20reform&cmpt=q

When they tried it they couldn't even get a graph for "crime reform" but by asking for a comparison of the two I got a graph. And wow, slam-dunk win for "criminal", way more searches.

Okay, I decided to try one on my own. I went to Bing and typed "hillary clinton cor" and the top suggestion was "hillary clinton corruption" Google? The top suggestions were "hillary clinton corporate" and "hillary clinton correct the record"

Okay, Google Trends, which of those three is the most popular?

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=hillary%20clinton%20corruption%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20corporate%2C%20hillary%20clinton%20correct%20the%20record&cmpt=q

And it's "corruption" by a large margin.

Interestingly, there is a completely different autocomplete for Google News results.

"hillary clinton cri" -> "hillary clinton criminal prosecution", "hillary clinton criminal video"

"hillary clinton ind" -> "hillary clinton indictment for emails", "hillary clinton indiana", "hillary clinton indianapolis"

"hillary clinton cor" -> "hillary clinton correct the record", "hillary clinton cory booker", "hillary clinton corruption reddit"

Now, Google claims that what is going on is just a standard thing where they block certain terms like "criminal" from searches. This story from The Verge argues, persuasively, that Google is telling the truth. http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/10/11906912/google-denies-autocomplete-search-manipulation-hillary-clinton

The most interesting point: most of the people searching for dirt on Hillary Clinton don't bother to type her full name, and the autocomplete gives more negative results if you just search for "hillary". Let's try that.

"hillar

Excusing it because it's an algorithm isn't a defense because Google has been through this before.

Remember the gorilla incident?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7...

"Google attempted to fix the algorithm, but ultimately removed the gorilla label altogether."

If something is right algorithmicly but nonetheless wrong they have no problem implementing a kludge.

I know Americans can never contemplate the idea that anybody may have freedom who isn't American let alone have MORE freedom

A few places are comparably free, but the vast majority of the world's population, regretfully, continues to live under regimes considerably more oppressive than the US. And I'm not talking just the usual suspects — like China or Russia — generally respectable places like India can be quite intolerant of unpopular opinions and authoritarian in controlling the information networks. It may seem crazy to Americans, but Germans and Brits, for another example, routinely get arrested simply for saying the wrong things on social media — in the US attempts to criminalize "hate speech" are still duly resisted.

Not to mention certain sunny locales, where one's had can be removed for apostasy.

Reducing America's control over the Internet will — inevitably and by definition — increase the share of control by these governments.

We've seen this before — UN's "Human Rights Council" is a good example of it. All of the things about it, that the so called "Liberals", dismiss as "myths", are actually quite true. It will happen to the Internet's governance — inasmuch as it needs any — as well.

they saw tivo give up on the dvr space when they sold out to a patent-holding drm company with no interest in set top boxes or consumer markets

What?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...

Tivo isn't going away anywhere I look, what is your source for them giving up on DVRs?

This is only hypocritical if one can argue this is actually anti-competitive, which I haven't seen any supporting argument for. Uber is not stifling or restricting their competition by refusing to provide a free data service to some third party. My read of it is that this is a violation of the EULA to use their data services.

Has Uber been anti-competitive? Absolutely. But this ain't it.

What is Elon smoking ?

Actually, Comcast may have to allow that. But only because the government is considering forcing them to.

Here is a Washington Post article about that: https://www.washingtonpost.com... (It really should have included a disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post also owns Amazon.com, which is likely to produce an open cable box if this proposal passes.) And here is an earlier article on The Verge with more speculations on what it would mean: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1...

Maybe it would be free if Apple added some ads, taking our precious datas, etc. Oh wait...

Are you implying that Apple actually DOES that shit?

Sorry, no.

There only foray into the "Ad" world, iAd, is going away on June 30th of this year.

And as for "taking your precious data", Apple does WAY less of that, most, if not all, can be turned off with easy GUI switches, and as it says in this no legalese document, NO "Personally Identifiable Information" is shared with ANYONE.

So do some actual research before posting next time, willya?

I am too invested in the 3.5mm headphone jack to give it up. That standard has been around since 1964, and Apple is deluded if they think they can make it disappear.

Apple didn't start this path, most major companies are planning for the death of the 3.5mm jack. Apple is just getting on the train.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...

Intel wants USB-C to replace the headphone jack

Sure, sending a text message or making a phone call is fine, but 51 percent said they'd be uncomfortable sharing personal data with an AI system.

Well, that's something Google is going to have to overcome, considering that their I/O developer conference pretty much was a heads up for "hey folks, we're going to really start using AI for everything we do."

The two big consumer products that come to mind are (1) Google Home (or what @Pinboard called "Stasi in an Glade air freshener form factor) and (2) Google's 97th (?) chat app Allo which has end-to-end encryption turned off by default and seems to be stoking the anti-AI fears with creepy here's-the-answer-you-would-have-said predictive texts. mean, Allo seriously looks to me like a rush to jam cool technology into the uncanny valley of personal communication.

I have a feeling Google is going to have to consider the age old "just because we can, does that mean we should" considerations when it comes to AI. Especially regarding the optics. Sure, they know they can be trusted (everyone trusts themselves, after all), and the tensor flow/neural network/machine learning stuff they're doing is awesome, amazing, and has incredible to-be-discovered cutting edge applications.

But I kinda feel like the predictive texting thing off the bat feels like a solution looking for a problem-- Wave 2.0 if you will-- and the public is obviously very wary (and doesn't really know what "AI" is or how it works..) As Dan Kaminsky put it, "Maybe people would be less weird about AI if we called it automated statistics.".

All the effort to brand Hangouts, and they're throwing it out the window?

Why not do this for the perfect text app:

1. Keep the Hangouts brand.
2. Bring back jabber/XMPP interoperability and support OTR with non-Google users.
3. Add Signal's end-to-end encryption as default
4. Make the Allo AI stuff opt-in for now (necessarily sacrificing privacy)

The mugger likely searched the victim on FB after the mugging.

And this is the reality. You can't do anything on Facebook (even searches) without being caught in one of their algorithms to increase their profit (in this case, by increasing interconnectedness).

What's even more scary is that Facebook is now tracking and advertising to you when they see you outside of Facebook [1]. This combined with the fact that Facebook trackers are everywhere infested on most sites, means without some means of being ignored [2], you could be tracked even if you didn't visit FB.

Paranoia: it's healthy now.

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/5...
[2/CH] https://chrome.google.com/webs...
[2/FF] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...